Expenses reform has turned us into petty clerks, say MPs

MPs have complained that the expenses scandal has reduced them to the role of 'petty accounting clerks'.

Despite massive criticism of the level of their taxpayer-funded allowances, some told the standards watchdog they were victims of the furore.

One insisted that making huge profits from selling taxpayer-subsidised homes was a 'victimless crime', while another claimed parliamentary expenses were 'back-door pay' meant as consolation for foregoing salary increases.

Some MPs believe they are now 'petty accounting clerks' since the expenses scandal

One backbencher even said they should not have to submit receipts with their claims Eric Illsley, Labour MP for Barnsley Central, said: 'This makes MPs into petty accounting clerks.'

Critics say it proves many in the Commons have learned nothing from
the expenses scandal, which forced a number of MPs to stand down.

Share this article

The submissions were made to the Committee on Standards in Public
Life, chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, which is redrawing the rules on
allowances.

Labour MPs Megg Munn and Eric Illsley made submissions to the Committee for Standards in Public Life

After he launched an inquiry into the discredited system in June,
Sir Christopher lambasted MPs for 'exploiting' expenses for 'personal
gain', and 'lacking principles' rather than displaying selflessness,
honesty and integrity. But some MPs insisted they had been helped
to submit large claims by the Commons Fees Office, which processed
their expenses.

In a letter to Sir Christopher, Mr Illsley - who claimed the maximum £400 a month for groceries - said it was not MPs' fault that
they put in such huge claims.

'It cannot be right to maintain that MPs should not have claimed
this money after being encouraged to by the Fees Office,' he wrote.

Adrian Bailey, Labour MP for West Bromwich West, who claimed 77p for
a light bulb and £1.65 for shampoo, said: 'The most
legitimate items of expenditure are now represented as some sort of
outrageous claim on the public purse.

'The system is not adequate to cover the costs of spending 150 days
or so a year in central London and run a home.'

Others said the high claims were not MPs' fault because they had been encouraged to make them in lieu of pay rises.

Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, who also claimed £400 a month for groceries, said: 'It was the Government that
began to use MPs' allowances as a form of back-door pay.'

And Meg Munn, the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley who 'flipped' the
second home on which she could claim expenses to a more expensive flat,
said the MPs' salary of £65,000 'should be increased to
reflect the need to have two homes'.

Tory local government spokesman Stewart Jackson said axing the
controversial second-home allowance would be 'draconian and unfair'.

Nick Harvey, LibDem MP for North Devon, told the inquiry it was perfectly fair for MPs to profit from house sales even though their mortgage interest payments had been reimbursed by the taxpayer.

He said: 'If making a capital gain is seen as a crime, then it is a
victimless crime, because it does not add in any way to the taxpayers'
burden: It is simply a function of the market. The MP has borne all the
risk.'

A number of MPs also spoke out against the ban on employing family
members, with Mr Harvey saying that while it was 'virtually unheard of'
in the public sector or large firms, it was common in small businesses.

'The culture of an MPs' office is not unlike that of a small firm,' he added.

But anti-sleaze campaigner and LibDem MP Norman Baker said: 'Some
of my colleagues have got used to operating in a way which is
unacceptable and want to carry on.